BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Reality News

20 comments on Reality News

Reality News

: I’ve been thinking about how to bring reality TV to the news.

Of course, you could try to argue that news already is reality TV. But, of course, we know better. TV news and everything that feeds it is spun-dried, homogonized, pasteurized, purified, prepackaged, precooked, prechewed, commoditized, co-conspired, and repeated a hundred times a day. It’s as real as Disneyworld.

So here’s my concept for Reality News:

Take a bunch of citizen reporters — moms, grandpas, students, poor people, immigrants, ugly people, webloggers… people who would never otherwise get on TV except on American Idol or Survivor — and send them out on the stories they want to cover to get the answers to the questions they want to ask with camera crews and trucks with big network letters on the side — and dare the powerful to turn them away.

This does Michael Moore one better, for this isn’t an obnoxious publicity vat just trying to get more fame and more fortune. These are real people, consumers, voters, citizens.

So send them to the headquarters of the latest company ripping off customers or stockholders and dare the PR people to turn them away. Or send them to any government agency (I nominate the FCC these days) or any politician’s office to demand answers to their questions about what they’re really doing for us.

Even if they are turned away, that would make great TV — we’d have a great time sneering at some slimy PR guy sent down to stonewall the citizens — and soon enough, the powerful would have to realize that they’re smarter to let the citizens in and information out. Pretty soon, you’d see the citizens sitting down to real conversations with company presidents and senators and newsmakers. Why, I bet you’d even see our citizen reporters interviewing the President, before long.

The beauty of this is that the citizen reporters won’t be trying to build a relationship with news sources; there won’t be any conflict of interest here.

And by all means, let’s make it interactive: Let us propose our own questions from the Web. Let us nominate citizen reporters and pick the best and fire the rest.

I guarantee you that you’d see compelling news you won’t see elsewhere. And you’ll see other news shows respond to this competitive threat by trying to get more, well, real.

: Dave Winer has another take on reality news.

: UPDATE: Jeff Sharlet has a great story about being a reporter who didn’t know better, from the comments:

…And I wouldn’t worry about amateurs getting rebuffed by PR people. One of my first jobs in journalism (a point at which I was, essentially, an amateur with a paycheck) was covering naval courts martial in San Diego. I didn’t know my editor had sicced me on the local Naval press office just to bug them, with no more hope for my success in gaining access than he’d had for the last several rebuffed reporters.

So the PR guy blew me off, and I thought I was going to lose my first job. I called again. And again. Not knowing any better, I kept calling up the chain of command, yabbering about freedom of the press, etc. Til finally I got someone in the Pentagon who called someone who called someone — etc. — until the local PR guy called me, with apologies, and anytime access to the low level courts martial not normally deemed newsworthy. Which ended up becoming the subject of stories about race wars on aircraft carriers, sex and the chain of command, and truly draconian military drug laws. Newsworthy, indeed.

I wonder if now, as a more experienced journalist, I’d be so persistent — I might dismiss that PR guy as a dead end. But amateurs don’t know when to quit. The 9/11 widows are a perfect example of the power of amateur news gatherers…

20 responses to “Reality News”

  1. billg Avatar
    billg

    Watching amateurs get rebuffed by PR people who know what they’re doing might be amusing for 20 minutes, but it’d be pretty boring after that… like every other “reality” show.
    Seems like just another way to draw ratings by confirming half the audience’s biases and irritating the other half. Like talk radio.
    I don’t understand the notion that news becomes propaganda unless written by intellectual eunuchs. Everyone’s got an agenda, even the Guy-in-the-Street. What’s so good about trading an agenda you know for an agenda you don’t know?

  2. Steve Rhodes Avatar
    Steve Rhodes

    There was a really bad shortlived syndicated show a bit like this called the Reporters (I think and I also think it was created by Disney) except the reporters weren’t ordinary people, but it had a reality show sensationalistic style with a focus on the story of the reporter setting wrongs right.

  3. Ric Locke Avatar
    Ric Locke

    Why do you need the truck with the big letters on the side?
    The problem with the present setup isn’t bias; bias has always been there. The problem is that there are only a few people doing the news collecting, and they all have a similar bias. What they need is competition from others with equal but different biases, like the ideal picture of the long-ago multiple-newspaper city. Bloggers can do that, and it ought to be the next step in the evolution of Citizen Media.
    Forty, thirty, twenty, even ten years ago, a good-quality camera and recorder cost two years’ salary and took a highly-trained expert in good physical condition to operate it. Now the same thing is under $1000, weighs five pounds, and is automatic enough to do better than a bad cameraman could, if not quite as well as a good experienced one. Once upon a time, good TV demanded lights that would bleach nose hairs and resulting thick makeup, because the cameras weren’t sensitive enough. The $1K camcorder can take pretty good pictures in early twilight, because the tech got better. Audio stuff isn’t quite as well developed because the impetus wasn’t there, but it’s pretty darn good.
    News got to be what it is because it took lots of capital to set up to do it — a TV station costs a bloody great whacking pile of money, and a newspaper with press and all that the same. It ain’t necessary any more. All it takes is seizing the opportunity.
    The next step, especially for the “syndicate” blogs, is proactivity — collection rather than reaction. If, say, Winds of Change or Eschaton had one member with a good camcorder and access, that person could do as good a job as 90% of the local Hairspray & UltraWhite set, or better. There are lots of blogs.
    I look forward to the day when, if something happens, some blogger somewhere can step out of his or her front door, get the data, and post it. Others will pick it up and edit it, with the whole process taking place out front where anyone with the interest can check, and the result will be information, not just data.
    Patience.
    Regards,
    Ric

  4. larry Avatar
    larry

    Here’s a nice idea Jeff. Pass a ‘National Communications Law’ that states anyone passing along false information across a national media network will recieve 5 lash’s from a whip across the same network for each falsehood! So that the network could receive the best ratings on this new law, pass out the stripes every monday night at 10pm. Ah sweet fantasy, seeing Moore or Hannity tied to a whipping post receiving their due; medics could be on hand for Rather, Walters and Limbaugh. The ratings would go through the roof and the accuracy in reporting would improve.

  5. Jeff Sharlet / The Revealer Avatar
    Jeff Sharlet / The Revealer

    This is a brilliant idea. Great news gathering, great democracy, great art. And I wouldn’t worry about amateurs getting rebuffed by PR people. One of my first jobs in journalism (a point at which I was, essentially, an amateur with a paycheck) was covering naval courts martial in San Diego. I didn’t know my editor had sicced me on the local Naval press office just to bug them, with no more hope for my success in gaining access than he’d had for the last several rebuffed reporters.
    So the PR guy blew me off, and I thought I was going to lose my first job. I called again. And again. Not knowing any better, I kept calling up the chain of command, yabbering about freedom of the press, etc. Til finally I got someone in the Pentagon who called someone who called someone — etc. — until the local PR guy called me, with apologies, and anytime access to the low level courts martial not normally deemed newsworthy. Which ended up becoming the subject of stories about race wars on aircraft carriers, sex and the chain of command, and truly draconian military drug laws. Newsworthy, indeed.
    I wonder if now, as a more experienced journalist, I’d be so persistent — I might dismiss that PR guy as a dead end. But amateurs don’t know when to quit. The 9/11 widows are a perfect example of the power of amateur news gatherers.
    Jeff, this is a truly great idea. I hope you or someone else will steer reality news toward becoming a reality.

  6. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Billg: If all we see is PR people ignoring the people, yes, it would be boring. But I’ll wager we wouldn’t see that for long.
    Jeff: Great story!

  7. The Lonewacko Blog Avatar
    The Lonewacko Blog

    I think this has already been tried. They gave Hi-8 cameras to a bunch of people and then created a news show from it. I believe it was in NYC.
    I also believe (not having seen it) there was a cable channel called the Camcorder Network or something.
    And, there’s public access cable TV.

  8. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Larry-
    If there will be medics for Limbaugh, then there should be a coroner for Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw.
    And if lies by omission are included NPR better stand by for a comeuppance.
    -Regards

  9. Jeff Sharlet Avatar
    Jeff Sharlet

    I think the point would be to give amateurs the power of the professional press. Yokels with hi-8 cameras got rebuffed? What a surprise. Now send in the same guy with a network camera crew and a budget, and see if you get better stuff.
    Public access TV is good as what it is, but I think Jeff J. is talking about something much more ambitious here.
    I propose that candidates for the show’s rotating “anchor” spot be selected just as jurors are. Winners could opt out if they didn’t want to be on TV; otherwise, the news is what the winner wants to investigate, with the help of a professional production team. Not unlike the “Youth Portraits” radio produced by Dave Isay and Sound Portraits, some of the best radio ever made: http://youthportraits.org/

  10. billg Avatar
    billg

    What I don’t get is the antipathy toward “the media” and the expectation that people doing something in their spare time, with no recompense, are going to create something that is in any way different or better. (Who’s gonna pay the legal fees for the first one to be sued?)
    A network anchor may be influenced by his stock portfolio, and a blogger playing wannabe reporter might be influenced because his brother just got fired by the corporation he’s “reporting” on. What’s the difference?
    The current state of journalism is far from healthy, but I see no reason to believe bloggers won’t succumb to the same illness. Precious few that I know of actually engage in creating news. Most wouldn’t have much to write about if they couldn’t comment on the stories real reporters write.

  11. marc Avatar
    marc

    “The current state of journalism is far from healthy..” Which is where bloggers shine. Holding the reporter and the source accountable. Something editors seem to miss alot.
    “Most wouldn’t have much to write about if they couldn’t comment on the stories real reporters write.” Ah, but write they do; adding insight and inspiration and their numbers are growing.

  12. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    A network anchor may be influenced by his stock portfolio, and a blogger playing wannabe reporter might be influenced because his brother just got fired by the corporation he’s “reporting” on.
    I think you’ve got it backwards, billg. Reporters currently report from the perspective of their ideology and bloggers are more likely to pick up on an issue that no one else cares about.
    There is no real difference except bloggers generally have interests similar to others in their community.
    [generalization]
    Reporters generally maintain some sort of separation with their readership; intellectual social, etc.
    [/generalization]
    I know of several exceptions to the rule. None of them are considered “stars” in media circles.
    -Regards

  13. billg Avatar
    billg

    Marc: If a blogger posts a “correction” to a news story, how are we to know that his “correction” is accurate? I know there’s an argument that the great number of bloggers will, somehow, fact-check everything, but I don’t believe it. I’ve been reading blogs since the early days. They’re interesting, sometimes compelling, but they seldom do anything that I’d consider original reporting. The closest parallel I can think of is talk radio. In both formats, one person peruses the news of the day and offers commentary about a few stories. In most cases, the listeners/readers then phone/post their own comments. If you find that conversation provides “insight” abd “inspiration”, that’s OK. I don’t.
    Dann: You’re arguing that people who write and publish to the web are immune to the pressures, biases, etc., that real reporters face. Although that’s a common argument, it’s invalid. Bloggers are not working to generate original news; they are not working to deadline; they don’t take assignments from supervisors; they aren’t financially dependent on the words they post on their blogs. As soon as bloggers do those things, how will they be any different from reporters?
    My basic point is this: Generating news is a process that’s independent of the publishing medium. A blog is a place to publish something; it’s not a process. An individual who engages in the process of reporting and publishes his stories on a blog isn’t a blogger, he’s a reporter. And, yes, the cost of publishing to the web is almost zero, but the other costs of supporting a news operation remain the same. That’s why we see a zillion singleton bloggers, but hardly any blogs supported by paid staffs of reporters, editors, photographers, researchers, archivists, etc.
    When all you have at risk is your laptop and your spare time, it’s easy to stand on unchallenged principles. Any bloggers who morph into legitimate reporters and start paying the mortgage with the money they earn from it will discover that publishing on the web rather than on paper or on the air doesn’t grant them immunity from the real world.

  14. Camilo Avatar
    Camilo

    Jeff, it is happening already: the little blogger that goes out and interviews an artist, a record producer, a doctor. The enticement? Content, hits, perhaps a blogdex/. effect.
    Yea, in this scenario you do need the tools of the trade, concepts such as libel and your responsibility. But the blogosphere is self-correcting, to a large extent, and best practices are soon imitated.

  15. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    billg-
    Thanks for illustrating my point. I never argued that ‘citizen reporters’ or bloggers are free of bias. If your quoting ability is indicative of the state of American journalism, then we are in deep trouble.
    What I said (and still maintain) is that, in general, the media has a bias and that this bias generally is different than the biases of the average American. I have also said that this bias generally leads to incomplete reporting and that incomplete reporting is bad for our country.
    I also suggested that citizen reporters or bloggers are likely to have interests (i.e. hobbies, personal experiences as opposed to ideological biases) that differ from professional reporters.
    I think Jeff’s point is that the process of generating news is broken. That this process is preventing the media from reporting the facts regarding issues in which their readership/viewership is interested.
    IMO, the primary problem is an insular media with limited experiences that exhibits disdain for those with differing experiences.
    Military service, ownership of guns, evangelical Christianity, Constitutional government, and free markets being some examples where I have consistently observed poor and/or biased reporting.
    -Regards

  16. billg Avatar
    billg

    Dann, we disagree on some basic points.
    I see little difference between bias and interest in terms of their impacts on story selection, emphasis, treatment, placement, etc. A blogger who posts incessantly about specific personal interests is doing the same thing as a newspaper that gives prominence to (or ignores) stories about the owner’s other business interests.
    I have no way of knowing the biases, hobbies, etc., of the average American. I don’t know how to define “average American”. I reject the notion that “the media” exists as a single institution, so I’m hardly likely to understand the biases of something that doesn’t exist.
    I’m also not certain what you mean by “incomplete reporting”. But, I don’t believe a reporter or a news organization is obligated to deal equally, or even mention, opposing or alternative points of view in every story about a particular subject. If readers really want to consume a “balanced” news diet reflecting a spectrum of views, it is their responsibility to draw from multiple sources.
    I don’t really know if the news business is any more “broken” today than it has ever been. I don’t know if reporters are showing disdain about those with different experiences. I certainly don’t want any potential respect for “ownership of guns, evangelical Christianity, Constitutional government, and free markets to influence the stories they write, any more than you, perhaps, want to see reporters influence their stories bcause they lack disdain for agendas you oppose.
    In any case, if the news business is broken, blogging won’t fix it. Blogging is pointing to and commenting about something others have published. That’s useful sometimes, but it is not reporting. The act of blogging is not the act of creating news. On the other hand, anyone who engages in the process of reporting and posts his stories to a blog isn’t a blogger. He’s a reporter, and in no way immune to the ills that you think afflict “the media”. If he can rise above those issues, he can do it publishing in a newspaper, on TV or even in a blog.
    For the record, pundits, assorted TV talking heads, talk radio shows, etc., aren’t creating news, either. They’re entertainers, not journalists.

  17. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Bill-
    IMO, the difference is that on one hand, a person interested in airplanes (to pick a random subject) will probably do a decent job of reporting on the FAA and other associated issues. That would be more interest than bias.
    OTOH, such a person that reports on the necessity of federal funding for the local airport runway rebuild (while carefully avoiding mention of declining usage) probably has biases that are creeping into their reporting.
    I’m not sure why you don’t think that complete reporting isn’t essential? If someone reports that a candidate for public office was once convicted of rape, but then fails to mention that it was statutory rape, the ‘victim’ was a few months shy of 18, and the ‘victim’ had Mrs. Candidate X for the last 27 years, is that the type of reporting that is useful and productive for voters??
    You are correct, I don’t want reporters to either respect or disdain a given topic to the point of omitting other valuable information. That clearly isn’t the case, in my experience.
    2 quick examples:
    1992/1993: Three Marines were accused of trashing a North Carolina gay bar. Front page news in several large newspapers that I was reading at the time. A couple weeks later, the story about how they were attacked was buried on page G59.
    Throughout the 80s and 90s, legislators would wave AK-47s and complain about ‘assault weapons’ and then write laws designed to regulate semi-automatic firearms; two totally different categories. And I’ve yet to see any reporter explain how bayonet lugs have any bearing on street crime.
    The resulting reporting could have been improved if the mainstream media included people from a broad variety of experiences and political philosophies.
    I agree that blogs are not the be all and end all solution to the problem. I also happen to agree that pundits are not news reporters (usually).
    What I am hoping is that you will understand that media bias is affecting what gets reported, how it gets reported, and that both are causing negative results.
    -Regards

  18. James Stephenson Avatar
    James Stephenson

    This is really just a reply to Draconian Military Drug Laws. Do you realize the equipment being used today is deadly. Do you really want to be training with someone who was drunk or stoned. Hell no, and neither would I.
    Those laws were made because of the extreme abuse of drugs that were going on in the Military in the early 80’s.
    And as a taxpayer, I surely do not want someone to be handling a couple of decades of my tax money while stoned. Some of the Laser targetors I used in the Army cost upwards of a quarter of a million dollars. That does not even include the cost of the Tracked Vehicles. The ammunition, I do not think anyone wants to run down range on a Combat course with live ammo and have your combat buddy stoned. I know I would not.
    So yes, if you are stupid enough to be a huge stoner in the Military, expect retribution to be swift and hard, and I agree with it.

  19. billg Avatar
    billg

    Dann, I agree that a peson interested in a subject may want to report on it, but I don’t believe that interest contributes to a report that is better than one produced by a better reporter who lacks that interest. Bias and interest are often matters of perspective: that reporter’s interest in airplanes could be seen as biasing his reporting about aviation. Professional reporters keep their interests and biases out of their stories. When they don’t, the impact is equivalent.
    (Although, it seems many people fretting about media bias believe humans cannot resist being controlled by their biases and interests. Perhaps that is a bit of projection on their parts.)
    It is easy, and simplistic, to conjure hypthetical cases of reporting that omitted relevant and known facts. My point, however, is that reporters are not obligated to ensure each story contains every possible point of view about the subject at hand.
    There’s simply no reason that, weeks later, the follow-on to a story needs to be given similar treatment or placement. The news moves on. So does public interest.
    I;ve no idea what a “bayonet lug” is, or why anyone should care. In any case, the press isn’t in the business of tutoring people. If people interested in that gun legislation thought it was important for people to knuw about bayonet lugs, it was their responsibility to tell people, not the press. Bayonet lugs were, I suspect, not news.
    I don’t see blogs as doing anything other than publishing comments on the reports and opinions of other people. Bloggers aren’t in the news business. And, by definition, when a blogger starts publishing real news based on real reporting, he’s no longer a blogger.
    And, I’ve always accepted that bias impacts the work of reporters. So what? I don’t expect anything else. People just need to be a bit more sophisticated about it. It’s more realistic to consume news from a wide variety of sources, with an awareness of their individual biases, etc.

  20. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Bill-
    There are times when cluelessness on the part of a reporter can and does result in poor reporting. I’ve seen it happen time and again. Just as I’ve seen media bias creep into reporting time after time.
    It is one thing to not report some facts on a random basis. My point in this is that the media consistently omits specific segments of knowledge from their reporting and that this is a bad thing. For example, the reference point for reporting on the military (up until Afghanistan and Iraq) has been one of antagonism. [sarcasm]Nothing good or honest ever comes from the military.[/sarcasm] Basic information such as unit identification and hardware nomenclature are consistently missed as well.
    IMO, the media tends to ignore facts that support the idea of a little less government being a good thing. John Stossel is exempted, of course. [grin]
    As for the follow on story, essentially my beloved Marine Corps takes a black eye from the media and there is no obligation to correct the story. Antagonism towards those cro-magnon military types is OK. Highlighting a story that reinforces the stereotype of the military as openly and physically hostile to gays is acceptable.
    But publishing an accurate accounting of the facts with something close to similar prominence isn’t really needed? I’m not asking for an identical top of the fold headline. I’m asking for a story that has a headline (below the fold is fine) a couple of paragraphs and then is continued further back in the paper.
    I thought the first rule of journalism was to get it right.
    It is not easy or simplistic to conjure hypothetical cases of reporting that omitted relevant and known facts. The post-war coverage of Iraq should serve as a huge gaping example. Prominent coverage to the continued terrorist / guerilla attacks. Portraying the entire country as being slowly wrung of the will to live. Talking mostly about destruction but little if any about construction. One NYT front page story does not make up for the rest of the omissions, IMO.
    But hey, “Bush lied, people died” and the media can feel free to portray the results in the worst possible light.
    We need “sophistication” within the media. One FoxNews against CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc. is not sophisticated. The Washington Times against the Post, NYT, LA Times, etc. is not sophisticated. Reason magazine against Newsweek, Time, etc. is not sophisticated. Obtaining news from multiple sources is useless if all the sources have the same news.
    IMO, the media operates from the basis of finding ‘problems’ for government to solve. Any facts that do not support that point of view are either omitted or are framed in the worst possible light.
    Regards